As reported several weeks ago and in accordance with the Gilmore decision, ID is not required to fly in the United States. Two recent documents have corroborated this fact. The first is today’s letter from South Carolina Governor Sanford to DHS in which he does not ask for an extension to comply with Real ID, but he does reference on its last page the Gilmore decision and the court’s determination therein that there is no ID to fly requirement.

The second is a letter from DHS dated March 22, 2008 to a private individual who queried DHS on their identification to fly policy after seeing signs in airports stating ID was required to fly despite the 9th Circuit’s ruling in Gilmore. This letter states that ID is, in fact, not required to fly domestically, despite DHS’ mis-truths printed on signs at airports.

This letter is important because the law that governs ID requirements to travel by air in the United States is identified by the Secretary of TSA to be Sensitive Security Information (“SSI”) meaning its release would be “detrimental to the safety of transportation” – meaning it’s “secret law” – meaning we can’t tell when the law has changed. All we are now allowed to know is that the law has not changed as of March 22, 2008.

We prefer the Federal Register as the resource for being alerted as to a change in the laws as opposed to DHS’ random corrections to their continuous mis-truths printed up on signs in our nation’s airports.

I wonder if you guys are aware yet that, as of 2 weeks from now, this headline will no longer be true? See TSA’s latest travesty of a press-release at: http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/enhance_id_requirements.shtm Key words and tricky phrases right up front: “Beginning Saturday, June 21, 2008 passengers that willfully refuse to provide identification at security checkpoint will be denied access to the secure area of airports.” Translation: “No ID? Oh, so sorry, you won’t be flying today after all…”

Given that it starts June 21, is anyone brave enough to try another July 4 test case?

One thing I would suggest for a test case is to have a specific appointment with a government representative in the destination city, which being denied flight would cause one to miss, thereby actually and directly interfering with “petition[ing] the Government for a redress of grievances”.